Could artificial intelligence be granted a soul?

[freesoulhope]

Siemease twins obvioulsy are not united as one soul, but as one body. Even if there brains is stuck together, it is still two brains, unless one of them is not functioning.

You know this Hitlen, stop playing games .

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

Siemease twins obvioulsy are not united as one soul, but as one body. Even if there brains is stuck together, it is still two brains, unless one of them is not functioning.

You know this Hitlen, stop playing games .

This in not a game at all, it is serious reality. The good doctor argued that forming a “unit” creates ONE entity. So his definition of “unit” is arbitrary, at best or simply irrelevant. And there are some serious corollaries to you suggestion, (soul connected to the brain) which I posted a long time ago in another thread and I will “resurrect” now.

There is a surgery, which separates the two halves of the brain. In such cases there will be two similar, though not identical halves within one skull. One is dominant, meaning that it has control most of the time, the other one gains control on an intermittent basis. The behavior of the two halves is dissimilar. Did the scalpel of the surgeon “create” a fresh “soul” ex-nihilo, or do the two halves share the same one? Contemplate it.

 

[Hitetlen]

Dr. Bonnette:

Living things exhibit nutrition, growth, and reproduction.

Yes, they do. A snowflake also exhibits nutrition and growth. A falling pebble may split and exhibits “reproduction”.

In a computer we can emulate a living organism, with collects “raw” materials, changes its own structure, and even creates an identical copy of itself (asexual reproduction). Read about it in von Neumann’s book: “The theory of self-reproducing automata”, or E. F. Codd’s book: “Cellular automata”. This can be done today.

You may argue that it is not “true” living, since disconnecting the power will “kill” this organism. Yes it will, so what? We, as humans can only function within a very restricted set of parameters, if we dumped into space we shall also cease to function. Life is not something that can easily be defined. Is a virus (organic or computer related) alive?

Here is another example: I contend that a piece of rock in my garden is alive. It eats, excretes, moves, grows, reproduces, conducts conversations with its peers. We cannot observe it directly, because its life span is about 70 million years, so one split second of its life equals our whole life. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

This in not a game at all, it is serious reality. The good doctor argued that forming a “unit” creates ONE entity. So his definition of “unit” is arbitrary, at best or simply irrelevant. And there are some serious corollaries to you suggestion, (soul connected to the brain) which I posted a long time ago in another thread and I will “resurrect” now.

There is a surgery, which separates the two halves of the brain. In such cases there will be two similar, though not identical halves within one skull. One is dominant, meaning that it has control most of the time, the other one gains control on an intermittent basis. The behavior of the two halves is dissimilar. Did the scalpel of the surgeon “create” a fresh “soul” ex-nihilo, or do the two halves share the same one? Contemplate it.

There is nothing to contemplate, there is either one person with extra living tissue(another body living next to it) or there where two minds sharing the same organ-Body.

However theres no reason not to believe that, if it where Gods will, that he couldnt put two awarnesis in one brain, it just simply isnt the case in this reality, unless anarweres to us, that is actually the case.

In the womb they began as two, or where ment to be two, then because of some kind of error in the “Physical reality”, they became one body, not one soul. This might cause the mental “death”( the leaving of the soul) of the other baby, but also leave a souless living cadava, acting as a parasite living on the heathy and more complete baby.

If the other brain is not aware,( which we cannot know for sure) then its possible that its just extra part which could have been a human being. But there are all kinds of implications theologically, that people can use in terms of abortion. Any ignorance in this matter could be very dangerous, and soul destroying.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Here is another example: I contend that a piece of rock in my garden is alive. It eats, excretes, moves, grows, reproduces, conducts conversations with its peers. We cannot observe it directly, because its life span is about 70 million years, so one split second of its life equals our whole life. Can you prove me wrong?

No, i cant, but, you could also say that animals are not dumb, and that they simply speak a different language, that we cant understand.

Where science is practical in it excluding everything, that doesnt represent a “natural cause” it can also lead to the ignorant assumption that everything in nature is the result of something natural( A trend that has to end).

You have to use you reasoning capabilitys also, rather then just science. Becuase the disipline of science will allways lead you in to natural causes for nature, becuase people have pre-assumed that everything on the planet earth is a natural phenominon.

And once you begin to make up ignorant explanations for what could possibly be supernatural in nature, “science” in its
pre-assumed ignorance can become a soul destroying contradiction to reality.

Scientific reaserch alone, is like sola scriptura. Its not fool proof, It hasn’t Got a foundation, it is working its way to its foundation. And at some point, it will lead you astray regardless of the truth you have unearthed in using such disiplines.

Im not saying that one can prove the supernatural, but you can be reasonable in your thinking, and realise that there is a dimension beyound the physical reality, that nature in actual fact points to. Regardless of whether or not it can be proven scientifically, It can be proven reasonably.

Where as when you look at the nature of animals, there is nothing to say that they are anything like us in matters of are awareness, therefore its not reasonable to believe they have confesations and express them selfs like we do. You have to close your eyes to not see it.

 

[Anim8]

I have just skimmed through this so forgive me if I mention something already said (or miss something someone said).

My experience in programming is relatively small (some programmer please correct me if I am wrong) but there is no such thing as “ghosts in the machine”. The only thing in the machine is what I put there, nothing more.

Here is an example of a program I wrote for one of my school homework assignments.

import java.util.Scanner;
public class airline
{
public static void main(String args])
{
int choice = 0;
boolean array] = new boolean [10];
int freeFirstClass = 5;
int freeEconomy = 5;
int customersFC = 0;
int customersE = 0;
int change = 1;
Scanner (name removed by moderator)ut = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Please type 1 for First Class or 2 for Economy: ");
choice = (name removed by moderator)ut.nextInt();
while (choice <= 2 && choice >= 1)
{
 
if (choice == 1) // assign seat in First Class
{
	if (customersFC <= freeFirstClass)
	{
	array[customersFC] = true;
	customersFC++;
	System.out.printf("Your have been asigned seat number: %d in First Class

", customersFC );
	break;
	}
	else
	{
	 System.out.printf("Unfortunatly there are no more seats available in First Class.
Would you like to puchase a seat in Economy?
Enter 1 for yes, or 2 for no.");
	 change = (name removed by moderator)ut.nextInt();
	 if (change == 1) choice = 2;
	 if (change == 2) break;
	 else choice = 5; break;
	}
}
 
if (choice == 2)
{
	if (customersE < freeEconomy)
	{
	array[customersE] = true;
	customersE++;
	System.out.printf("Your have been asigned seat number: %d in Economy

", customersE + 6);
	break;
	}
 
	else
	{
	 System.out.printf("Unfortunatly there are no more seats available in Economy.
Would you like to puchase a seat in First Class?
Enter 1 for yes, or 2 for no.");
	 change = (name removed by moderator)ut.nextInt();
	 if (change == 1) choice = 1;
	 if (change == 2) break;
	 else choice = 5; break;
	}
}
 
}
 
if (choice > 2 || choice < 1) System.out.print("Error: That is not an option.");
 
 
 
}
}

Now someone tell me where the “ghosts” are. Its all quite simple, I tell the computer to do things. When I want it to make a decision, I tell it to look for a certian condition eg.

if (choice > 2 || choice < 1)

which means

if the variable named choice is greater then 2 or if the variable named choice is less then 1, do the following

If the variable is either 2 or 1 then the computer doesn’t know what to do, it was only told what to do if choice is equal to 2 or 1 (the variable is an integer so we don’t need to get into decimal places). The computer cannot learn as we do, because if it comes across a situation for which the programmer has not anticipated, it won’t know what to do.

Oh and the whole notion of random segments of code grouping itself together is totally ridiculous. Nothing like that could even happen (unless there was something in its programming which told it to do so). And even then code needs to be in a certain order and written in a certain way in order for the computer to understand. If it just comes together randomly, odds are the machine will produce an error message and crash.

True AI is impossible. Yes you can simulate it (and they are getting quite good at it), but actual AI will never occur.

Therefore I reject the argument based on the fact that its premise is flawed.

 

[Hitetlen]

Anim8:

True AI is impossible. Yes you can simulate it (and they are getting quite good at it), but actual AI will never occur.

I like such “omniscient” statements, they are so funny.

Questions: what is the difference between “real” and “artificial” intelligence? How does one differentiate between two responders, one of which is human and the other one is not, if the answers themselves do not reveal which is which?

 

[freesoulhope]

That is correct, A soul doesn’t emerge from the imputing of data in to an electronic brain. The brain has to be created with a soul as the foundation, inorder to will itsself to learn.

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

No, i cant, but, you could also say that animals are not dumb, and that they simply speak a different language, that we cant understand.

But we can know that animals do not have cognitive powers and they do not speak a language comparable to ours. You missed the point in my post. The question is: “What is life and how do determine if something is alive or not”. There is no definitive answer to this.

Life is complexity: complex responses to complex stimuli. There is no better definition that this.

freesoulhope:

Where science is practical in it excluding everything, that doesnt represent a “natural cause” it can also lead to the ignorant assumption that everything in nature is the result of something natural( A trend that has to end).

As long as everything so far can be explained by natural causes, this is a useful hypothesis.

freesoulhope:

And once you begin to make up ignorant explanations for what could possibly be supernatural in nature, “science” in its pre-assumed ignorance can become a soul destroying contradiction to reality.

Since the “soul” is just another useless hypothesis, we don’t lose anything.

freesoulhope:

Im not saying that one can prove the supernatural, but you can be reasonable in your thinking, and realise that there is a dimension beyound the physical reality, that nature in actual fact points to. Regardless of whether or not it can be proven scientifically, It can be proven reasonably.

I never saw even a half-convincing “proof”, only assertions based upon “authority”, transcendantal threats and promises.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

I like such “omniscient” statements, they are so funny.

Questions: what is the difference between “real” and “artificial” intelligence? How does one differentiate between two responders, one of which is human and the other one is not, if the answers themselves do not reveal which is which?

The difference is, we already had a soul before we began feeding are brains with infomation about the physical world. For a machine to become aware it must first have a soul, whether you like it or not.

A machine cannot become self aware juist by feeding it information. We can become “aware” of are selfs because we had a soul before hand, to comprehend the world, not the other way round.

When you type information in to a computor. Its you doing that. The brain just Gives you the ability to do so within a physical reality. However the mistake, is to think that the mind is a physical part brain, it is apart of the brain but in union with the flesh. The mind is the foundation on which your brain works, not the other way round.

If you brain is damaged, that does not mean your “mind” is damaged. It is your ability to interact with the physical world that has become fualty. Of cause i cannot prove this to you, nither can science prove that your awarness comes from a “Physical manifestation”. It is an error to think that “nature” explains everything about how nature works.

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

There is nothing to contemplate, there is either one person with extra living tissue(another body living next to it) or there where two minds sharing the same organ-Body.

Yes there is. The operation I described exists. Its result is two persons due to the two different and independent half-brains. Their difference in behavior can be observed. Are there now two different “souls”?

We can bring the problem even further. One of the half-brains can be removed from the skull and kept alive artifically. It would be a miserable existence without I/O organs, but the brain activity could be detected. So the existence of two separate persons is undeniable. What about their “souls”?

Going into science fiction now. Theoretically the half-brain could be connected to the body of a brain-dead person, thus even giving body to the brain. Will this newly created person have a “soul”?

No matter how you twist it, the assumption of the “soul” results in such insurmountable problems. On one hand the concept does not explain anything, on the other hand it leads to absurdities. It is time drop the whole concept into “file thirteen” - a euphemism for the trash can.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

As long as everything so far can be explained by natural causes, this is a useful hypothesis.

Since the “soul” is just another useless hypothesis, we don’t lose anything.

I never saw even a half-convincing “proof”, only assertions based upon “authority”, transcendantal threats and promises.

It seems to me, that if science found a part in the brain where all concience fought was seen coming from, and they said to you, that concience fought came from a physical part of the brain called what ever they would call it, you would believe the mind to be a physicall manifestation. If so, then this discussion is meaningless.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Yes there is. The operation I described exists. Its result is two persons due to the two different and independent half-brains. Their difference in behavior can be observed. Are there now two different “souls”?

We can bring the problem even further. One of the half-brains can be removed from the skull and kept alive artifically. It would be a miserable existence without I/O organs, but the brain activity could be detected. So the existence of two separate persons is undeniable. What about their “souls”?

Going into science fiction now. Theoretically the half-brain could be connected to the body of a brain-dead person, thus even giving body to the brain. Will this newly created person have a “soul”?

No matter how you twist it, the assumption of the “soul” results in such insurmountable problems. On one hand the concept does not explain anything, on the other hand it leads to absurdities. It is time drop the whole concept into “file thirteen” - a euphemism for the trash can.

How does this mean that there are two people just because half a brain can be kept alive, and be seen producing electrical activity? this only says to me that there is electrical activity, it does not suggest awarness, or a presence of a soul.

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

The difference is, we already had a soul before we began feeding are brains with infomation about the physical world. For a machine to become aware it must first have a soul, whether you like it or not.

It does not matter whether I like anything or not. I asked how can we tell the two responders apart. And you did not even attempt to answer. (Hint: human is as human does.)

freesoulhope:

If you brain is damaged, that does not mean your “mind” is damaged. It is your ability to interact with the physical world that has become fualty. Of cause i cannot prove this to you, nither can science prove that your awarness comes from a “Physical manifestation”.

Indeed you cannot prove it. But science can prove that awareness is physical. Just observe what happens when chemicals are introduced into the brain, and the mind gets all messed up.

freesoulhope:

It is an error to think that “nature” explains everything about how nature works.

Is there just ONE example to support this???

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

How does this mean that there are two people just because half a brain can be kept alive, and be seen producing electrical activity? this only says to me that there is electrical activity, it does not suggest awarness, or a presence of a soul.

Awareness is the electrical activity, as can be observed when conducting a conversation with the two persons. And of course it disproves the idea of a “soul”.

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

It seems to me, that if science found a part in the brain where all concience fought was seen coming from, and they said to you, that concience fought came from a physical part of the brain called what ever they would call it, you would believe the mind to be a physicall manifestation.

Unfortunately your sentence is meaningless - at least to me.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

It does not matter whether I like anything or not. I asked how can we tell the two responders apart. And you did not even attempt to answer. (Hint: human is as human does.)

Indeed you cannot prove it. But science can prove that awareness is physical. Just observe what happens when chemicals are introduced into the brain, and the mind gets all messed up.

Is there just ONE example to support this???

No. Science can prove that chemical reaction happen when we think, and that the brain is apart of the thinking process, but doesnt tell you where willfull thoughts originate from, it doesnt tell you the “foundation of awareness”, even if awarness of are “Physical reality” is matrial based. They cannot prove that awarness is physical, only that Physical things are happening when thinking ocurrs.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Awareness is the electrical activity, as can be observed when conducting a conversation with the two persons. And of course it disproves the idea of a “soul”.

No. It proves only that the half brain is producing eletrical activity simmerla to when two people are having a convesation. It does not prove that the eletrical activitys that are happening in the “Half brain” are dependent on the same awarenes of “self” and thoughts, that we have while having a convesation.

When i converse with you im aware that im having a coversation. You produced know evidence that the half brain can have a convesation and is aware of such things, only that the brain is still working.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Awareness is the electrical activity, as can be observed when conducting a conversation with the two persons. And of course it disproves the idea of a “soul”.

Awareness and will to think produces the electrical activity you see in the brain, that is all you seeing.

However, it may be that we think with are brains, but that is not the source of are thoughts. The brain only provides a means to interact with the Physical world, to be aware of the Pysical world while alive with in are biological beings, and think within it. Once death occurs, the physical laws that seem to mark the end of us, are nolonger binding on the mind, therefore how can death destroy the mind? death is an illusion, which only affects the Physical.

 

[freesoulhope]

Ive made a mistake of mixing up awarness with the soul. when i talk of the soul, im talking of the thing that makes you aware of being aware, of the reality around you.

If you where not aware of the memorys in your brain, how could you select them? If a baby was not aware once born in to the world, how could it learn? electrical thoughts may appy within the physical world, but brain does not produce the does thoughts, it processes them in to electrical and chemical stimular to work the physical body